Abstract
Drawing on a ritual approach to microsociology, I explain how and why aesthetic and moral practices inform each other and evolve as they do. I continue to develop a theory of aesthetic engagement, specifying how it generates the emotional sensibilities that inform moral practices. Examining aesthetic engagement and emotional sensibilities focuses our theoretical attention on our capacity to find our moral bearings, even in unfamiliar or challenging conditions. To develop this perspective, I draw on Bargheer’s Moral Entanglements and a volume on bird watching’s therapeutic value, Bird Therapy. These two works provide insight into the micro-emotional dynamics through which nature-based practices generate aesthetic power. I conclude by discussing the implications of aesthetic and moral practices for theorizing cognition and culture. In particular, I argue that an aesthetic practice approach to perceiving and knowing about the world does not fit neatly into the dual processing frameworks currently popular in Cultural Sociology.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
This is a pragmatist argument—habitual action or practice requires creativity because context is always changing.
I would argue that charismatic actors generate this sort of engagement as well.
Benzecry & Collins (2014) make space for this theoretical development, noting that opera fanatics don’t have solidarity experiences with the rest of the audience, but are intensely focused on performers.
These types of animal encounters do not have the interactive quality between different species that Jerolmack (2009) describes.
See Pagis and Summers-Effler (2021) for a more detailed treatment of aesthetic engagement.
As far back as the 1950’s Skinner (1958) found that varying reward intervals created the most enduring patterns of behavior. When creatures were consistently rewarded, reinforced behaviors quickly trailed off after rewards stopped. When creatures were inconsistently rewarded, reinforced behaviors were far more durable. These findings have been reproduced for specific cases, like gambling, many times.
These are ideal-typical distinctions. In actuality, birders can participate in both styles, generating both sensibilities in different conditions.
This is the type of engagement that Bargheer depicts in the most detail in Moral Entanglement.
Others have made similar points using culinary creativity as an example (Leschziner & Brett, 2019).
Moral sensibilities are similar to the “know how” in that this is an action-based way of perceiving, learning, and remembering. However, moral sensibilities need not be implicit and non-declarative, they can be challenging, highly reflexive, and effortful.
References
Bargheer, S. (2018). Moral Entanglements: Conserving Birds in Britain and Germany. The University of Chicago Press
Benzecry, C. E. (2011). The Opera Fanatic: Ethnography of an Obsession. University of Chicago Press
Benzecry, C., & Collins, R. (2014). The High of Cultural Experience: Toward a Microsociology of Cultural Consumption. Sociological Theory, 32(4), 307–326
Brett, G. (2022). Dueling with Dual-Process Models: Cognition, Creativity, and Context. Sociological Theory
Chatterjee, A. (2014). The Aesthetic Brain: How We Evolved to Desire Beauty and Enjoy Art. Oxford University Press
Collins, R. (2004). Interaction Ritual Chains. Princeton University Press
Damasio, A. R. (2010). Self Comes to Mind: Constructing the Conscious Brain (1st ed.). Pantheon Books
Durkheim, E. (1995 [1912]). Elementary Forms of Religious Life
Goffman, E. (1964). Interaction Ritual: Essays in Face-to-Face Behavior (pp. 1–270). Taylor and Francis
Harkness, J. (2019). Bird Therapy. Unbound
Hitlin, S., & Vaisey, S. (2013). The New Sociology of Morality. Annual Review of Sociology, 39, 51–68
Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the Wild. MIT press
Jerolmack, C. (2009). Humans, Animals, and Play: Theorizing Interaction When Intersubjectivity is Problematic. Sociological Theory, 27(4), 371–389
Johnson, M. (2007). The Meaning of the Body: Aesthetics of Human Understanding. University of Chicago Press
Leschziner, V., & Brett, G. (2019). Beyond Two Minds: Cognitive, Embodied, and Evaluative Processes in Creativity. Social Psychology Quarterly, 82(4), 340–366
Lizardo, O. (2017). Improving Cultural Analysis: Considering Personal Culture in its Declarative and Nondeclarative Modes. American Sociological Review, 82(1), 88–115
Lizardo, O., Mowry, R., Sepulvado, B., Stoltz, D. S., Taylor, M. A., Van Ness, J., & Wood, M. (2016). What Are Dual Process Models? Implications for Cultural Analysis in Sociology. Sociological Theory, 34(4), 287–310
Pagis, M. (2019). Inward: Vipassana Meditation and the Embodiment of the Self. University of Chicago Press
Pagis, M., & Summers-Effler, E. (2021, December). Aesthetic Engagement. In Sociological Forum (Vol. 36, pp. 1371–1394)
Schiavio, A., & Van der Schyff, D. (2018). 4E Music Pedagogy and the Principles of Self-Organization. Behavioral Sciences, 8(8), 72
Skinner, B. F. (1958). Reinforcement today. American Psychologist, 13(3), 94–99
Summers-Effler, E. (2006). Ritual theory. Handbook of the Sociology of Emotions (pp. 135–154). Boston, MA: Springer
Thompson, V. A. (2009). “Dual Process Theories: A Metacognitive Perspective.“ Pp. 171–95 in In Two Minds: Dual Processes and Beyond, edited by Evans, J. S. B., Frankish, K. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Vaisey, S. (2009). Motivation and Justification: A Dual-Process Model of Culture in Action. American Journal of Sociology, 114(6), 1675–1715
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Summers-Effler, E. The Morality of Birding: Aesthetic Engagement, Emotion, and Cognition. Theor Soc 51, 907–922 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11186-022-09494-0
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11186-022-09494-0